[clang] Mark CWG554 as N/A

[Endill]

Summary

P1787: CWG554 is resolved by using the word “scope” instead of “declarative region”, consistent with its very common use in phrases like “namespace scope”.

[cor3ntin]

LGTM.
There are many editorial issues that ended up as defect reports, you could probably batch many of them in subsequent PR

[Endill]

There are many editorial issues that ended up as defect reports, you could probably batch many of them in subsequent PR

Thank you for suggestion. I'm being on a safer side at the moment, because CWG405 raised more questions than I anticipated.
I'll also wait until tomorrow morning (≈18 hours from now) to let everybody interested comment on this, to avoid situations like the one with CWG360 yesterday.

[aaron.ballman]

LGTM!

[shafik]

@aaron.ballman do you think it is worth it to provide a link to p1787 as well? I know you can just goto the issue and see that but it feels helpful. I actually missed this at first b/c I usually goto end of the issue to look for the resolution and was confused.

[aaron.ballman]

In D139172#3966863, @shafik wrote:

@aaron.ballman do you think it is worth it to provide a link to p1787 as well? I know you can just goto the issue and see that but it feels helpful. I actually missed this at first b/c I usually goto end of the issue to look for the resolution and was confused.

I'd be okay adding it as a comment in the test file itself, but I'm not certain it helps users all that much on the status page (esp if it's going to be wildly inconsistent as to what entries get a link and what ones don't).

[Endill]

@aaron.ballman do you think it is worth it to provide a link to p1787 as well? I know you can just goto the issue and see that but it feels helpful. I actually missed this at first b/c I usually goto end of the issue to look for the resolution and was confused.

I agree with Aaron about inconsistency, and would like to add that a simple reference to P1787 is akin to pointing to a haystack when one is searching for the needle, especially the wording needle.

[Endill]

@shafik Would it be fine by you to proceed without changes?

[shafik]

LGTM

clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp

namespace dr553 {
   // "is looked up in global scope", where it is not visible.
   void *p = new (c) int; // expected-error {{no matching function}}
 
   struct namespace_scope {
     friend void *operator new(size_t, namespace_scope); // expected-error {{cannot be declared inside a namespace}}
   };
 }
 
+// dr554: na
 // dr556: na
 
 namespace dr557 { // dr557: yes
   template<typename T> struct S {
     friend void f(S<T> *);
     friend void g(S<S<T> > *);
   };
   void x(S<int> *p, S<S<int> > *q) {

clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html

<tr id="553">
     <td>NAD</td>
     <td>Problems with friend allocation and deallocation functions</td>
     <td class="none" align="center">Unknown</td>
   </tr>
   <tr id="554">
     <td><a href="https://wg21.link/cwg554">554</a></td>
     <td>CD6</td>
     <td>Definition of &#8220;declarative region&#8221; and &#8220;scope&#8221;</td>
-    <td class="none" align="center">Unknown</td>
+    <td class="na" align="center">N/A</td>
   </tr>
   <tr id="555">
     <td><a href="https://wg21.link/cwg555">555</a></td>
     <td>CD5</td>
     <td>Pseudo-destructor name lookup</td>
     <td class="none" align="center">Unknown</td>
   </tr>
   <tr id="556">